Right and Left React to the Travel Ban and Other Supreme Court Decisions

The political news cycle is fast, and keeping up can be overwhelming. Trying to find differing perspectives worth your time is even harder. That’s why we have scoured the internet for political writing from the right and left that you might not have seen.

From the Right

“It’s [...] a defeat for activist judges who had tried to invent a new legal standard with which to derail President Trump.”

Mr. Clark writes that the Supreme Court’s per curiam decision is both a political victory for the president and “a win for legal common sense.” Rather than relying on Mr. Trump’s comments on Twitter or the campaign trail, Mr. Clark writes, the justices kept their analysis to what he sees as the strictly relevant considerations: “Whether the executive order is facially legitimate and balancing the executive’s authority on national security against the burden on the plaintiffs.” Read more »

“[I believe] that carve-outs for wedding industry-specific small businesses would be a reasonable accommodation that could help facilitate a public truce on these thorny and emotional questions.”

In light of the recent decision by the Supreme Court to hear a case on religious objections to gay marriage, Mr. Benson offers this column on the state of gay rights in the Republican Party. He notes that support for gay marriage among Republicans is at a high point, particularly among young people. Given this “seismic” change in attitudes, he offers some suggestions for conservatives who believe in the right to gay marriage but still want to protect religious liberty. Read more »

“Never again should we entertain proposals to help the worst off by penalizing the not so well off.”

Mr. Pollock, who is pursuing a medical degree at Sidney Kimmel Medical College after having served as an op-ed editor at The Wall Street Journal, suggests one way to lower the high premiums that would probably accompany the Senate’s health care bill: introducing an “Optional Federal Charter.” The charter, he writes, would allow consumers to pick between state and federal policies, competition that would ultimately drive costs down. Read more »

_____

From the Left

Image

Protesters against President Trump’s travel ban outside the White House in March.CreditAl Drago/The New York Times

The president and his supporters have been somewhat premature in their celebration of the Supreme Court’s decision on the travel ban, Mr. Kilgore writes. He notes that the court issued a “complicated and very preliminary ruling” that gives the administration a narrow and “tentative” victory. Read more »

“Many religious groups are insisting that they be treated neutrally when it comes to benefits but receive special treatment when it comes to regulations.”

Ms. Russell-Kraft sees two recent decisions by the Supreme Court as evidence that it privileges religious institutions over secular ones. Moreover, she argues that the ruling favoring Trinity Lutheran Church paradoxically diminishes the Establishment Clause, which “was written in large part to protect religion from government intervention.” Read more »

_____

Image

AT&T workers on strike last month in New York.CreditAndrea Mohin/The New York Times

“Elite Democrats seem not to remember where they came from, or what it was like when working-class people actually turned out for them.”

It’s difficult for the Democratic Party to acknowledge that it speaks the language of “institutional formalism and propriety of the professional middle class,” writes Mr. Winant, who is pursuing a doctorate in history at Yale. Leaders and journalists on the left would do well to not take the working class vote for granted, he writes, and better yet, to “be quiet and listen.” Read more »

_____

And Finally, From the Center:

“At times the analysis surrounding the immigration order seemed to drop any pretense of objectivity and took on the character of open Trump bashing.”

Mr. Turley, who teaches law at George Washington University, argues that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the travel ban case — allowing parts of it to go forward for now — should prompt some self-reflection on the part of the news media and the lower courts. He worries that when it came to the travel ban, once-objective journalists and judges ignored tenable legal arguments that supported the administration’s executive order. Read more »

“What is most important is that the court issued a per curiam opinion on the most contested issue of the Trump presidency with a sober, reasonable legal analysis written in a temperate tone, followed by a three-justice partial dissent that was also sober and reasonable in substance and temperate in tone.”

Mr. Goldsmith echoes Mr. Turley in his response to the Supreme Court, writing that he worries about the norms eroded by “Trumpism.” Both he and Mr. Turley agree that the president can bring out the worst in institutions we rely on to stay neutral, a “downward spiral of Tit-for-Tat norm violations.” The per curiam decision sent a signal that injected a “better model of behavior into our corroded institutions and discourteous civil discourse.” Read more »

_____

Image

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

“This bill is exactly what McConnell wants because it’s right in line with his long-term goals.”

Some commentators have suggested that Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, expects or even wants his health care bill to fail so he can move on to a tax overhaul and other legislative priorities. Mr. Silver finds this interpretation ridiculous, writing that Mr. McConnell “isn’t playing 13 dimensional chess.” Mr. McConnell’s strategy, at least according to Mr. Silver, is simple: Pass any legislation that will decrease government spending and taxes on the wealthy. Read more »